theforeign- policysupport.famously, they both worked to speak harsh truths about the unsustainability of the soviet union, something that coincided with the implosion of the soviet union under its own contradiction. some conservatives will tell you it was almost sort of like moses parting the red sea. they tear it all down. i don't think it was quite that. but clearly the truth telling to the soviet union was not a relevant and gave enormous hope to dissidents working behind the eastern block. domestically, they had a tremendously important impact on each other. they were both trying something, not identical but something very radical that was a kind of break with the economic policies and domestic policies of the past. the fact they were not isolated, that they could support to -- point to someone else on the other side of the ocean in charge of the important country who was doing the same thing, that make quite a difference, i think. you can see in the tributes paid to lady thatcher that people who work closely with president reagan said it made a difference. there is this impressiv

. and yet promoting human rights isn'taforeignpolicy, andit'snotaforeignpolicyprioritysimply because it's the right thing to do. it's time to our own security. it's tied to the possibilities of prosperity and of nations living by rule of law and of nation's living in peace. countries where strong human rights prevail our countries where people do better, economies thrive, rule of law is stronger, governments are more effective and more responsive, and they are countries that lead on the world stage and project stability across their regions. strong respect for human rights isn't merely an indicator that a country is likely doing well. it actually unleashes a countries potential, and it helps to advance growth and progress. so i ask you just to think of the country like burma for a minute. because of steps towards democratic reform and stronger human rights protections, a country that had been isolated for years is now making progress. as it reached where we wanted to be? know, but it's on the road. it's moving. and more people are contributed economy and participating in the

remarkable. i read sometimes left-wing authors who thinkamerica'sforeignpoliciesthissteaming economic thing to grab every spare penny anywhere to be found in the world. that's implemented by certain aspects of our policy at the state department and the diplomats generally are quite insistent on this vote they assume america has the strongest economy in the world and always will have the u.s. does need to maintain serious commercial services the way foreign countries do that promote or exports abroad. they sort of do but there is no comparison to other nations which view protecting their export interest as a key goal of their diplomats abroad so yeah you're basically right on that. >> hi. it's nice to see you. my question is concerning foreign american investments. so in her book -- claimed that between 1988 to 2008 the u.s. government took nearly 2000 proposal applications for business in the united states so as you know the government can give more tax revenue so do you support full investment and what do you think about it? thank you very much. appreciate it. >> okay. the standing i

is a wonderful country, but by the way, it make -- look, if you lookatforeignpolicies, youcan see europe is as it is and germany, and ask what we never can do because we have the history of france. italy, for superran integration at well but without france it will never. so, of course i would prefer to have the stronger position of france, but by the way, i am optimistic that they will say -- the are doing a lot of making reforms, as they implemented some -- make a lot of decisions. they would not have -- cut expenditures, deficit by cutting expenses, and relation is two-thirds cutting and one-third -- maybe you can send from one from the negotiation team to palace to help, and overcome the different position. uk would have been better from the very beginning if uk would have combine itself as part of the european continent, but they didn't. but of course, mentioned continental europe. not uk. if you look at -- we have situation -- at if you look at e situation properly, and has to be careful. i think it's -- my -- the more we succeed in our common european -- the sooner uk can join. the

think fortheforeignexchangemarket, it's more a questionofpolicyaction.and now, because we're in this limbo, that leaves sterling a little bit of limbo. >> meanwhile, the treasury there is targeting sales of 4 to 5 billion sales in six-month and is 1-month t bills. yes, same with italian yields, as well, michael. are we now at the low point in the cycle for spanish and italian yields? who is going to drive them lower from here and why would you? >> i think the market has seen a lot of liquidity expansion. first from the fed and then lastly from the bank of japan. and combined with the renewed commitment from the ecb to protect the euro, this has depressed yields to these kind of levels. i think it's difficult to see us going dramatically further. and if anything, strategically, we think that the three major problems in europe, the recession, inconsistent crisis management and rising political and social backlash against austerity are likely to come through and that leaves spain and italy very vulnerable to a sharp increase in yields. we're looking, for example, for 10-year